My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
CCP 03-29-2004
ArdenHills
>
Administration
>
City Council
>
City Council Packets
>
2000-2009
>
2004
>
CCP 03-29-2004
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
5/8/2007 1:19:28 PM
Creation date
11/14/2006 3:34:25 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
General (2)
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
251
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
<br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />) <br /> <br />3. <br /> <br />Could the property in question be put to a reasonable use without the <br />granting of the variance? <br /> <br />No. The applicant could continue to use the existing home and garage but could <br />not make improvements to expand the garage without a variance. Single and <br />Two-car garages have consistently been considered reasonable uses if the <br />applicant has no other option than to apply for a variance for the construction of <br />such a garage. In this instance, the parcel only has a depth of 74.2 feet. The <br />applicant would be left with only 4.2 feet of depth to work with and not require a <br />vanance. <br /> <br />4. Was the hardship created by the owner? <br /> <br />No. The house was built in 1948, prior to the establishment of the Arden Hills <br />Zoning Ordinance, Therefore the hardship of shallow lot depth was not created <br />by the property owner. <br /> <br />5. <br /> <br />Would granting the varianee alter the essential character of the <br />neighborhood? <br /> <br />No. Therc are 14 other properties on Lake Lane which were built on the same <br />style of very narrow lots, All of these properties would require some sort of <br />variance, most likely front or rear setbacks, to make any additions to their <br />property. In addition, the applicant's proposal would not encroach any further <br />into the front and rear setback areas than the current extent of the house and <br />garage. However, the variances are necessary because the additions would <br />represent new construction which is required to be compliant with the R-2 District <br />Setbacks (office/entryway, new stoop, garage); and increased area (additional <br />square feet) in violation of the R-2 District Setbacks (garage). Since the proposed <br />additions would not encroach any further into the setback areas and the lot <br />coverage and landscape area requirement appear to be compliant, staffbelievcs <br />that the proposal would no alter the essential character of the neighborhood. <br /> <br />Deadline for Al!encv Actions <br /> <br />The City of Arden Hills receivcd the completed application for this request on February 3 <br />2004. Pursuant to Minnesota State Statue, the city must act on this request by April 3, <br />2004 (60 days), unless the City provides the petitioner with written reasons for an <br />additional 60 day review period. The city may with the petitioner's consent extend the <br />review period beyond the 120 days. <br /> <br />N:\PlanningCases\2004\04-05 Spencer Variance (PENDrNG)\03-03-04 PC Report.doc <br /> <br />Page 5 of6 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.